@Jason, the point I'm trying to make is that once you've experienced a clips based workflow, you'll try to reproduce some of its flexibilities and dynamically vibrant ways of changing parts that you're playing, and the ways in which they're responding (in this case that's note filtering, but I've also talked of velocity filtering in the linked Low Hanging Fruit suggestion), on anything, and everything.

It sounds like AnotherScott has become very familiar with this approach (clip-like launching and modification), and is trying to bring some of that to how he uses the MODX/Montage... and he's come across a seemingly simple barrier to his playing's evolvement (that of changing response through note range filtering and adjustment) that he'd like to have stick around when he changes sounds dynamically and to suit the mood and evolvement of what he's feeling.

It's just a pity that Scenes don't provide a facility for ranges, as this would instantly make a clip-like approach to using drums, bass and backing arp parts on the MODX/Montage, since the arpeggios for drums, bass and rhythmic parts can be somewhat thought of as clip-like with their ability to run concurrently on all parts and be specific to Scenes AND be filtered/evolved by (and through) these ranges (velocity and notes in and out).

Perhaps unbeknownst to Yamaha, they're very close to empowering a clips-like workflow just by virtue of that Arp System's concurrency and integration with Scene Switching, and held back from great clip-like empowerment Part Selection fluidity (as Bill points out, it is clumsy as all get out) and Scenes being unaware of the note and velocity filtering changes -> that which enables evolvement of the Arps being played as "clips".

Furthermore, the Motion Sequencer's integration with Scenes and its interplay with the outputs of Arps means that Yamaha's inadvertently VERY close to making a truly powerful clips-like workflow in a Scenes based switching environment that's already there!

But -- Yamaha is seemingly unaware of their proximity to this kind of operational ability, unable to design congruent and low resistance work flows and seemingly disinterested in furthering the Arp System's empowerment of users. Combined, sadly, I think this means there's little chance they'd consciously realise the opportunity, let alone make it happen. And if they did, it'd likely be a clunker.

Clips-like behaviours operationally exists in DAWs and has been in drum machines for decades. It's not something limited to DAWs. Big screens aren't needed for this workflow, in fact - not at all!

The Scene buttons are all that's needed, along with the evolvement possibilities if they can store ranges.

Ergo, Yamaha is VERY close to a clips-like set of uber capabilities thanks to the way Scenes, Arps and Motion Sequences are a thing - as these provide all the mechanisms required to make a drumMachine or ClipsLike flowing evolvement and operation... IF there's a filtering mechanism for the Arps. Total user creation of unique clips would be easy if they'd expose/create good conditional Arps programming onboard, too, as then we could call it a work station, as it could provide content to itself, for itself. Though some would argue they need onboard sampling, too. And I tend to agree.

But that's neither here nor there, for this.

Please stop focusing on the literal when reading what I write. it's the concepts I'm often discussing, and this is exactly why I'm using the term "clips like work flow" to describe this, and why I suggest experiencing it, so you can see/feel the enormity of its way, and how simply, elegantly and utterly it transforms your consideration of musical structures and evolvement, both in offline composition and live play.

The MODX/Montage are embarrassingly close to making an incredibly fluid contribution to this way of playing and composing, but we all know how infrequent their updates are and how far they are from understanding user flow.

As to AnotherScott saying the at Element ranges aren't a factor - if you're playing Parts with Elements that use the whole range, and/or have restrictions and filtering that you're aware of and exploiting in your other range changes, then they're a non-factor and not a barrier to this workflow precisely because of this. Just put that issue to the side and try to consider what he's actually conceptualising as a work flow, regardless of the clumsiness of swapping Parts, knowing the right parts, etc etc...

[quotePost id=118885]

but I might want to be able to switch from among dozens.

Those 'dozens' could be almost anything. Sure, piano sounds are generallyl fairly consistent throughout the entire range of the key bed. That isn't true for strings, brass, percussion or other sounds...Some parts will work together just fine and others will produce wacky results. You are certainly free to leave things up to chance even during a performance if you want...But those elements and operators that you say 'are really not factors at all' are really the MOST important factors when it comes to note shifting and/or key ranges.
[/quotePost]
I guess I'm failing to explain adequately. It is actually the very fact that not every sound sounds good in every key range that is part of the reason the thing I'm asking to do is valuable!

If you can bear with me, let's start at the beginning. Imagine choosing, for example, any single part sound from among these categories: piano, keyboard, organ, guitar, string, brass, synth, pad. The sound will play on every key on the keyboard. And at least on a 61, it will give you a musically useful sound on most keys. Not with every single sound, but with most of them. On a 76 the extremes will start to get a little dicier. But I think you'll agree that most of these single part performances give you a usable sound at least over the bulk of the keyboard.

Now imagine splitting the keyboard somewhere middle-ish, maybe a bit more toward the bottom (since that is the common and probably generally desirable default of giving you a bit more right hand space than left). Since the majority of sounds were usable over all-or-most of the 61 (or even 76) keys when played alone, then it follows that they will also still be usable when played on one side of this split or the other. So we're halfway there... we can load almost all of these sounds into our left space or our right space, and not have wacky results. They will sound exactly the same as if they were the only sound you had loaded, and you were choosing to play those keys.

BUT... as you suggest, some sounds are more useful over a more limited range. You could put a flute on the bottom 2 octaves of a 61, it's not going to give you unpredictable/wacky results... but it's probably not what you want. What would make it instantly a lot more useful? You guessed it: Note-shift it up by 12 semitones, and maybe change the split point so you can play it a little higher (even though it's still your left-side sound). So my "magic buttons" are not creating a wackiness problem when combining sounds in splits,... to the contrary, now they are solving a problem, in fact the very one you mentioned, where you're exactly right to say that, in their default state, sounds like strings and brass are often not optimally played "throughout the entire range of the key bed." Presumably that's part of why Yamaha does give us the tools to make these kinds of adjustments manually, I'm just looking for shortcuts to make a couple of my more common ones more instantaneously... which would also allow me to more easily grab sounds on the fly instead of being limited to what I've set up in advance. Could I possibly make a mistake and select a sound where these buttons will still not allow me to put the sound I want on the desired keys and at the desired pitch? Sure. I don't think that invalidates the usefulness of the concept.

[quotePost id=118885]
Just my opinion but any mixing and matching of parts to be switched as you propose needs to carefully thought out IN ADVANCE to ensure that the pieces work as expected when performed.

I, for one, would NEVER use a sound or combination during a performance that I hadn't rehearsed beforehand.
[/quotePost]
There are different kinds of performances. Some are largely improvisational. Part of the adventure, both in your choice of what to play and in your choice of sounds, is that you may end up with something great, or you may not. 😉 But in either case (notes or sounds), a little experience and knowledge will generally keep you out of serious trouble... you know what kinds of things are at least likely to work okay and not be problematic A feature that lets you do useful things should not be considered a bad idea just because it could also let you do stupid things. 😉

[quotePost id=118887]you seemed OK with pressing the "Param with part" selection in addition to picking a Performance (even if it would be only one regardless of split). For me, even things that seem "OK" would be too much work.[/quotePost]You only have to do the "Param with part" selection once. After that, it is remembered for all subsequent work, until you turn the keyboard off (unless you change it back manually, of course). (I kind of wish I could set the board to default to off rather than on for this, but it's easy enough to change, since it's right there on the screen you would be on anyway if you were bringing in a sound.)

[quotePost id=118887]As it stands you have 50 or more sounds you would have to pick from when swapping out even if you didn't create two versions of each. That's over my limit as it is and picking from 100 doesn't seem that much different. To me using [CATEGORY SEARCH] on the gig is above my cut-line.
[/quotePost]
Ah, I'm willing to do Category Search. By leaving it at "Favorites" I currently immediately get a screen of 16 highly used sounds; being willing to click to the next page gets me to 32, and I have one more page which could get me to 48 except I haven't quite filled it up yet. But these sounds, alone or in pairs, would give me pretty much all the sounds I need for almost any kind of gig (though I also have some Live Set spots with special configs for specific songs when needed). I can also easily filter these 40-something favorites down with the category buttons.

I don't actually usually use this method to select sounds during a gig. Since the functions I asked for in the OP don't exist, I stick with Live Sets. But I could use that method, and it wouldn't be overwhelming. In terms of my single selectable sounds (as opposed to combinations I've assembled for particular songs), I could use Live Sets or Category Search Favorites, and either way, I'd have 16 sounds at a time on the screen out of a total of 40-something sounds. Live Set is nice because the buttons are bigger and can be re-ordered. Category Search could be nice because it has category filters, which might help you find what you're looking for more quickly. But I think either can work.

[quotePost id=118887]... regarding Fantom - I haven't really gotten much use out of it so I'm nearly 0% acquainted. I'd be interested in learning about how this works for them just for my own edification. Are you swapping out Tones or Zones on the Fantom (or something else)? At any rate - learning the details of how another keyboard solves a problem and does this "better" (I only quote because this is subjective - not because I think one way or the other) would be good to articulate. Thanks in advance.[/quotePost]I will do a video. I might be able to do it today, but if not, it might not happen until next weekend.

[quotePost id=118889]
Roland's use of the term Key Range also includes the word 'Transpose' but there is nothing in their manuals I can find about 'note shift'. It isn't clear to me if changing a Key Range actually 'transposes' the note values being generated or not.[/quotePost]
I used the term "note shift" in my OP because that's Yamaha's terminology on the MODX. Since I was asking about how to do something on a MODX, it was sensible to use MODX terminology. On MODX, as I understand it, Yamaha reserves the word "transpose" specifically and only for manipulation of MIDI note values (which is not what I want when it comes to the internal sounds, which is why I used the term "note shift" instead, to avoid complicating discussion of the split point). In other situations, "transpose" may mean something else, including on other boards (even other boards from Yamaha). Though since I was talking about both internal AND external sounds in my OP, to be more specific, I really should have said "note shift" when applied to internal sounds and "transpose" when applied to external sounds.

Roland's "Transpose" function works like Yamaha's "Note Shift" when applied to internal sounds (in that it changes pitch but has no impact on your physical split points), but works like Yamaha's "Transpose" when applied to external sounds.

(BTW, I also have a Yamaha YC73... and in that case, unlike on the MODX, the front panel Transpose button does NOT change the MIDI note value. In fact, if you play a C and then transpose it up one semitone, playing the C will now sound like a C# but it will still send the value for a C from the MIDI Out! That's a different problem...)

[quotePost id=118889]I also couldn't find any Roland mention of entities resembling Yamaha's elements or operators.[/quotePost]What Yamaha calls an Element is what Roland calls a Partial.

[quotePost id=118889]The Roland docs say that Fantom-0 generates MIDI and uses that MIDI internally to feed their tone generator. Yamaha does NOT use MIDI internally.[/quotePost]
My understanding is that Yamaha does use MIDI internally. And that would actually explain why the front panel transpose button can appear to change split points. Because instead of specifically changing the pitch of an internal sound, it changes its MIDI note number, which, yes, works to change its pitch... but if that MIDI note number ends up on the other side of a split, not only will the pitch change, but the sound will change as well.

[quotePost id=118899]I merely wanted to make clear that on Yamaha:

1. note shift does NOT affect/alter key range
[/quotePost]
Right, that's why my OP listed two separate button-assignable goals... one for note shift and another for key range. Two completely different things.

[quotePost id=118899]2. key range is defined at both part and element/operator levels and changing values at one level does NOT adjust/change values at the other level. So if only part level values are changed it may cause ALL sound to cease if the new range is outside the ranges of the part's elements/operators.
[/quotePost]
Basically, what I was trying to automate there is the equivalent of viewing a Performance and doing the following:

1. selecting my Left-Hand sound (on a keyboard that has been split to an upper and lower sound, each with a single Part)
2. Click Edit
3. Click Pitch
4. Click Note Shift
5. change the value to +12

Are you trying to tell me that, on all those sounds I was talking about (for example virtually anything in the piano, keyboard, organ, guitar, string, brass, synth, pad categories), when I take one of these sounds that's playing only in the bottom region of the keyboard and shift it up 12 semitones, it's likely for "all sound to cease?" Because I can tell you, I haven't had that happen yet. I've done it tons of times with no issues.

[quotePost id=118899]3. transpose is ONLY available globally at the instrument level[/quotePost]
In MODX-speak, that is true, and as I tried to explain, that's why I called it Note Shift instead of Transpose, so as to use Yamaha's term (at least as applied to internal sounds). Other boards (as I mentioned, even including other Yamahas) could refer to a Note Shift as Transpose. I generally try to use the appropriate term for a board based on what the function is called on that board. But I admit it can be confusing, because the same word don't necessarily mean the exact same thing on some other board.

[quotePost id=118899]4. octave shift is associated with 'transpose' and not 'note shift'[/quotePost]One may audibly shift a sound by an octave by using the Note Shift function and setting it for 12 semitones. That's what I was talking about doing.

[quotePost id=118899]Not clear from the Roland manual but it appears that Key Ranges are set at the zone level only and not for partials. Whereas on Yamaha ranges are at both the part and element/operator level.
[/quotePost]
Yes, key ranges can be set for zones, as shown on page 12 of the Fantom-0 parameter guide, but they can also be set for partials, as shown on page 24.

[quotePost id=118899]

My understanding is that Yamaha does use MIDI internally.

I was referring to this from the 'Mastering MODX: MIDI Settings Explained doc
h-t-t-p-s-:-/-/-w-w-w.yamahasynth.com/learn/modx/mastering-modx-midi-settings-explained

One thing that we need to make clear is MODX can and does work internally without you ever concerning yourself with MIDI commands. It does not address itself with MIDI.

[/quotePost]
interesting, thanks.

[quotePost id=118899]
And those splits changing are what I was forewarning about if you change part level Key Ranges but not the element/operator level. You might move the part level range outside of one or more element/operator level ranges.
[/quotePost]
and yet, as I explained above, I note-shift lower key sounds up by 12 semitones all the time (practically any time I do a split where the left hand sound is not bass guitar), and it always works! No ceasing of sound, no suddenly having a split point apparently changing so that a key triggers some sound other than what I expected.

[quotePost id=118899]And, guess what? In your last reply to one of Jason's comments you NOW tell us that you are prescreening possible sound/part choices by the judicious use of favorites!
[/quotePost]
I mentioned early on in a reply to you that I didn't need to call up any of the 2200 sounds, just dozens of them. Sounds I use all the time. They are pre-screened in the sense that they are sounds I often use. They were not prescreened for their ability to be shifted up by 12-semitones if they are placed in one of the lower octaves. But while I can't swear I've actually tried that with all of them, any time I have, it has worked.

And maybe that's the crux of all this. I can assure you that these functions work, because I've done them manually many times. I was just looking to see if there's a way to do them more quickly (in a sense, creating a single button macro that will do, for example, the 5 steps I listed above to shift a sound up by an octave, instead of my having to do the 5 steps myself every time, which precludes ever being able to do it on the fly). And I've learned that it can probably only be done via an external device sending sysex. Okay, so I have the answer to my question. But I don't think the entire concept behind the idea is unworkable, as you seem to be trying to convince me it is. 🙂

[quotePost id=118901]

Are you trying to tell me that,. . . when I take one of these sounds that's playing only in the bottom region of the keyboard and shift it up 12 semitones, it's likely for "all sound to cease?

No - that is NOT what I said. You mixed my note shift comments in #1 with my key range caution in #2.
[/quotePost]
Ah yes, so I did, sorry.

So to correctly make that same point in context of key range as opposed to note shift, I'll fix the example:

Basically, what I was trying to automate there is the equivalent of viewing a Performance and doing the following:

1. selecting my Left-Hand sound (on a keyboard that has been split to an upper and lower sound, each with a single Part)
2. Click Edit
3. Click the upper Note Limit field
4. change the value from E2 to E3
5. Click the Performance (Home) button
6. Select the Right-Hand sound
7. Click the lower Note Limit field
8. change the value from F2 to F3

Again, I can do this with (as far as I can tell) any combination of two sounds (at least in the categories I mentioned, e.g. I'm not talking about drum parts!). Making this set of Key Range changes does not create problems. True, I am changing the key ranges at the Part level but not the Element level. But still, I don't seem to be in danger of finding "all sound to cease" over any of the keys. (Even if I had ALSO note-shifted the bottom sound up by 12 semitones.) All keys will play... what I've changed is that some notes near the center of the board will now play using the lower sound instead of the upper sound. Do you now agree that this will work after all, or do you still think there's a real danger of notes no longer playing? And again, I was just trying to automate a quicker "one or two button" way to implement those 8 steps, which seem to work fine when I do them manually, so would presumably still work fine if I managed to create an iPad initiation of sysex commands that would do those same things (assuming such commands exist).

[quotePost id=118901]

Yes, key ranges can be set for zones, as shown on page 12 of the Fantom-0 parameter guide, but they can also be set for partials, as shown on page 24.

And do the partial key ranges change automatically if you change the zone key range for the zone they belong to?
[/quotePost]
I don't know what's happening "behind the scenes," all I know is key range changing works... just like it works when I do it (albeit with more steps) on the MODX.

[quotePost id=118901]I don't consider 'note shift' (as on the Modx) to be splitting. I view split implementation being done ONLY by changing key ranges.
[/quotePost]
Right, no disagreement there. 🙂

Anyway, when I do the Roland video demo Jason asked for, the whole concept may make more sense. 🙂

Anyway, when I do the Roland video demo Jason asked for, the whole concept may make more sense.

No rush - at your leisure.

I always understood these note ranges to be Part-level. Not sure how or why there's the fuss about element note ranges. It only matters if the Performance is constructed to already split the keyboard into key zones at the element level. I don't think this is a very common thing to do and particularly not with the bread-and-butter kind of sounds I would imagine Scott is digging into. Even when there are element-level "splits" - how that impacts your Part-level range changes is case-by-case. Really I think it's safe to just declare that any Parts with problems when assigning different Part note ranges are outside of the scope of your usage (you just flat out don't use any like that).

Sometime I'll walk through Scott's great rundown of what he's doing the clunky way. Just to walk in those shoes.

@AnotherScott

Have you heard the term "herding cats"?

I'm reasonably sure this was first used in modern vernacular once it was discovered how programers respond to opportunity.

@Bill

Put aside your concerns, as they're not a concern if the AWM2 or FM sounds are designed and/or chosen on the basis of their Element/Operator ranges being applicable, therefore not a problem. It's only a problem if you pick sounds (Parts) that are going to be a problem, which can be easily fixed by changing how their Elements/Operators respond, or at the sound design stage if you're the source of the Parts created.

AnotherScott has experimented already, and aware of the potential problem, and avoiding it!

It's not a problem. You're prevaricating on a technicality to avoid direct discussion of the real issues - that of creating packeted messages (macros, I've called them, because it will take little streams) of Sysex to adjust the desired parameters from the easiest to configure (and use) controller possible - since this is the ONLY way to do this in an instant that's suitable for live usage and/or dynamic usage.

I know it, you know it, now AnotherScott knows it.

Everyone knows you're the most capable and patient programmer and manual reader here. That this is well within your wheelhouse.

AnotherScott: I could probably achieve this, but it would take me days, and drive me absolutely livid with rage, because I can't stand the way dependencies and problems are inherent in these things, that nothing has been done in modern computing to make control sending and receiving at least somewhat plug and play. Jason could likely do it all in a small portion of the time it would time me, and remain calm. Bill could likely do it in a very small portion of the time it takes Jason, and enjoy it.

Bill knows all this.

What you're seeing is how programmers behave when they're the expert in the room. This is how they respond to that opportunity... every.single.time.

And after this "problem" is resolved, they'll find another.

And another.

There are some legitimate issues - like which controller is best for this, based on ease of programming it to do this, and ease of operation. Likely a tradeoff that needs to be balanced. I'd probably do this with Lemur because it's least programming.

And do you need a Channel/Track selector before making the changes, so you can do it to specific tracks rather than it always being (eg) tracks/channels 1 and 2?

Want a "recall" feature with a list of Parts that have been swapped in and out and ranges used?

[quotePost id=118903]This test, though unrealistic in its simplicity, demonstrates 'all sounds disappearing[/quotePost]
I'd say that test is not "unrealistic in its simplicity" but I think rather it is unrealistic in that it is just not representative of anything that would actually happen in the real world. Remember, our starting point is a "left hand" Part which has had its Note Range limited to keys up to E2, and we're talking about the largest possible change being one that would change E2 to E3 (to re-locate the split point) and note shift up 12 semitones. Again, we're talking about, as Jason said, the bread and butter sounds. What piano, keyboard, organ, guitar, string, brass, synth, or pad sound could you expect to put on the keys up to E2 that would fail if you instead extended their playable key range up to E3 and note-shifted them up 12 semitones? Is there any single-sound single-Part instrument you could recall on the MODX that would be, for example, totally silent if you played it in the middle of the keyboard but note-shifted it up 12 semitones? If no such sound exists, you're postulating a situation that simply will never occur. If there are any recallable single-sound single-part instrument Performances that would simply go silent if you played them in the bottom half of the keyboard while having them note-shifted 12 semitones higher, I haven't come across them.

@Andrew - Thanks for your amusing note. 🙂 And you're exactly right in thinking of this as simply looking for "macros" to more efficiently do common sequences of events that I already successfully do manually. And to answer your questions, it would always be Parts 1 and 2 (right hand and left hand sounds, respectively). No "recall" of anything more is needed. But in the end, since the Fantom-0 which I also own already easily does this stuff (and actually with more of this useful capability/flexibility than even what I've described trying to do here), my interest was whether there were a reasonably easy way to get some of that same functionality, self-contained, on the MODX (since MODX of course also has some advantages of its own over the Fantom-0). Since there isn't, I'd either use the Roland if I needed to do this, or, if I am going to integrate external sounds from my iPad, I'd probably look for a way to manage the entire process from the iPad side. I suspect there would probably be an easier way to manage this without even using sysex (meaning also it wouldn't be tied to only working on the MODX), possibly using the same environment that would be "hosting" those external sounds (e.g. Camelot Pro, Keystage, or AUM).

@Bill

The vast majority of this thread is a failed attempt to get you to stop obsessing over Element/Op ranges so that you could, perhaps, refocus on the task at hand.

You know that, I'm sure.

You probably delight in your successful use of misdirection towards unfounded concerns outside the realms of the user's usage scenarios, and the subsequent straw-man-bike-shedding for the "problem" you've imagined into existence, too.

We all need hobbies, I suppose.

One benefit, BTW, of using the pre-program-your-splits-and-octave-shifting idea is that the MIDI messages required to shuffle in new sounds gets simplified to MSB/LSB/PC instead of dealing with SysEx cleanup after-the-fact if needed to set note ranges or shift octaves.

... and, further leaning into this idea - you could employ a MIDI foot controller to recall your Performances instead of [CATEGORY SEARCH]. The assumption here would be custom Performance 1-25 always goes into Part 1 (or whatever the left hand is) and Performance 26-50 always goes into Part 2. I say this because it matters for the foot pedal programming that itself would handle putting the new sound in the right Part.

Take the Morningstar MC8. I throw this one out there because it's fairly capable without hacking the firmware. 16 MIDI commands per button and just about any command is supported. It has (drumroll) 8 buttons each of which can stick a different sound into a different Part. Maybe I'd make the top left button and the bottom left the sound sound but have the split point in a different place. So the top row is all for one version of a split and bottom a different. Then have my left hand sounds organized on the left 4 buttons and right hand on the right 4 buttons. This would mean 2 selections on the same bank of LH sounds and 2 selections on the same bank of RH sounds. And common combinations of LH+RH could all be on the same bank although there will probably be paging or banking going on. The MC8 has 2 pages per bank and 30 banks. Times 8 buttons that's 480 different sets of MIDI commands (MSB/LSB/PC @ channel 1 for Part1, @ channel 2 for Part2). The pedal allows for an extra 6 buttons per bank but that requires external extra switches -- something probably not necessary but available. That's why my count of 480 is less than Morningstar's maximum number.

You could also organize these by having 8 different sounds on one page. Then page 2 would be the same sounds with the other split. Again with left-hand side 4 buttons for the LH sounds and right-hand side 4 buttons for RH sounds. You'd have 8 options instead of 4 in front of you vs. the other suggested organization (4 different LH sounds + 4 different RH sounds in front of you vs 2 of each).

The MC8 isn't the only game in town - the trusty old Behringer FCB1010 should work too with a firmware hack. There are several others out there with different capabilities.

Of course when changing the split point you've got two buttons to press (one for LH and one for RH) - so it would be best to have these all in front of you.

Instead of a footpedal I would use what I have - an iPad (I already carry it onstage) to send the MSB/LSB/PC to stick sounds where I wanted them (LH/RH to right Parts). This way selection can be a little more streamlined. I could probably handle even using a single button press to change the split while still only using MSB/LSB/PC to do this. I kind of wish iPad supported Ctrlr because that would make it easy to create the touch interface. Otherwise, I've advertised the WebMIDI that I would do (probably not for everyone) or switch my tablet from the iPad to a Windows tablet (which I also have available -- and does run Ctrlr).

There's actually a lot of ways to skin this one (more than I've presented including others' suggestions) with different amounts of work both on the programming and usage side. It's a given that what you wish for in terms of functionality doesn't exist natively in the box and requires some amount of external assist and/or bending your wishes to meet the limitations of the hardware. At least if the MODX is to do this job. If the Fantom does this natively in a manner that fits your needs then I can understand just cutting bait and using it.

I had never heard of the MC8... what a cool little box!

FCB1010 is a nice device too, but it weighs almost as much as the MODX. 😉